https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-61970258
She claims to have damning evidence against Trump on Jan 6, yet she says she didn't see most of this, but heard it from others.
Hardly any concrete evidence, is it?
All these lying angry bat shit crazy women have the exact same expression and body posture. I don't believe any of them.
shareonemanArmy82:
"What a crock of shit! How much did the democrats pay her to testify? If you watch her testimony, she seems as if she memorized a script."
TandyMan :
"All these lying angry bat shit crazy women have the exact same expression and body posture. I don't believe any of them."
Good to see you're weighing the evidence in a scientific manner .
whats next? dunk them in water to see if they float?
Your typical republican defence of
"It wasnt us , they're lying"
is straight out of the Trump playbook.
She’s now laughing stock who’s best hope is a prime time cnn hosting gig or slot on the view.
shareShe spoke under oath. To do that she’s putting her life on the line. If anyone else wants to dispute that under oath ….well…let’s see it, and THEN make a general decision.
Personally, I don’t think she’s lying at all, but it’s going to have to take someone to genuinely dispute under oath. Simply calling her a liar is “school yard shit”.
If she’s proven a liar under oath, the democrats will hit her just as hard as the republicans would.
IMHO, no one risks what she did. All it takes is one piece of evidence to un-do it. If she’s lying (at all), she’s fucked.
She's HAWT! Seriously, all I know is that everyone saying Trump did all this bad stuff is doing so under oath, and everyone who says he didn't absolutely refuses to testify under oath...Gee, I wonder why? 🤔
shareI'm weary of hearsay stuff. but I do believe her.
share